ÿWPC TUþ= Ä*|'¯I–(l ÿÒF6] „€3Ëf° fÜÔíRMéÿà×êÑ`VºªÅX`\õç=l\9ñØbƒúg ê–76¹Qh¨*#I.³Žì’®Ê‰Ö^†Ð…hÖVɉÝ—¥_bV†¨3`wD~Uþ9Må’ÔÝø Â\M(¦ ÒÖ÷¨ü¤ŽD:g~ë7•’¼LèÊw–Z¼.›Z/š^U>l̪ 0µv 0<+ 0Yg 0_À 0iƈ 0ÑN 0( D+G AMr ¿ 0¶Ï #Á… UNF %” Mš (ž NÆ ^ È wÔ 4Ø ì mî ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' F.G.G. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 209/1986 (25 March 1987), U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/OP/4, U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/OP/"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(©2øD$££Ý ƒÕ !ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X-ßXXXÔÔ€X-ßXXX-ßÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ŽÕ $¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X4_XXXÔÔ€X4_XXX4_Ô˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÙØÙÙØÈÙ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX|w) K‹k)´ëÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒÕ !ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X-ßXXXÔÔ€X-ßXXX-ßÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔF.G.G.Ô_Ô€v.€The€NetherlandsóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€209/1986Ð H˜ ÐÌ25€March€1987Ð  d ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€F.€G.€G.€(name€deleted)€on€15€April€1986Ð xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€authorÐ D”  ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€The€NetherlandsÐ ` ÐÌòòDeclared€inadmissibleóó:€25€March€1987€(twenty„ninth€session)óóÐ Ü, ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓDecision€on€Admissibilityó óóóÐ ŽÞ ÐÓÝÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€of€15€April€1986€and€subsequent€letterÐ @ Ðof€28€October€1986)€is€F.€G.€G.,€a€Spanish€seaman€who,€in€1983,€was€dismissed€togetherÐ &v Ðwith€222€other€foreign€sailors€by€a€Netherlands€private€shipping€company.€The€reasons€forÐ  \ Ðthe€dismissals€put€forward€by€the€company€were€that€the€foreign€seamen's€knowledge€ofÐ òB ÐDutch€was€not€sufficient€and€that€the€company€was€forced€to€reduce€its€work€force€becauseÐ Ø( Ðof€economic€difficulties.€The€author€points€out€in€this€connection€that€most€of€the€foreignÐ ¾ Ðseamen€had€been€employed€for€over€15€years,€and€that€no€Netherlands€national€wasÐ ¤ô Ðdismissed.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ1.2.€The€author€states€that€under€Netherlands€Ô_ÔlabourÔ_Ô€law€the€Ô_ÔArbeidsburoÔ_Ô€(an€agency€of€theÐ V"¦! ÐMinistry€of€Ô_ÔLabourÔ_Ô)€must€state€whether€a€dismissal€may€or€may€not€take€place€and,€in€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðconnection,€must€hear€both€parties€before€taking€a€decision.€He€alleges€that€at€the€time€theÐ "$r# Ðcompany€requested€permission€for€his€dismissal,€he€was€not€properly€informed€of€his€rights,Ð %X $ Ðbut€only€told€that€he€would€have€to€make€his€submission€to€the€Ô_ÔArbeidsburoÔ_Ô€within€14€days.Ð î%>!% ÐBeing€at€sea€at€the€time€.€and€not€having€an€opportunity€to€seek€counsel,€this€requirement,Ð Ô&$"& Ðhe€states,€was€very€difficult€for€him€to€comply€with.Ð º' #' ÐÌ1.3.€The€author€claims€that€in€the€circumstances€which€he€describes€he€was€denied€the€rightÐ †)Ö$) Ðto€equal€treatment€before€the€law€and€the€right€to€equal€protection€of€the€law.€In€support€ofÐ l*¼%* Ðhis€claim€he€encloses€copies€of€various€documents,€including€a€report€from€the€NationalÐ R+¢&+ ÐOmbudsman,€a€submission€by€the€dismissed€seamen€to€the€Cantonal€Court€(court€of€firstÐ 8,ˆ', Ðinstance)€in€response€to€a€submission€made€to€the€Court€by€the€shipping€company,€a€letterÐ -n(- Ðaddressed€to€the€queen€of€the€Kingdom€of€the€Netherlands€concerning€the€dismissal€of€theÐ ° Ðforeign€seamen,€certificates€concerning€the€author's€prior€satisfactory€employment€with€otherÐ –æ ÐNetherlands€shipping€companies,€correspondence€between€the€author€and€the€Ministry€ofÐ |Ì ÐJustice€concerning€the€author's€application€for€a€residence€permit€in€the€Netherlands€and€aÐ b² Ðdecision€of€the€Ministry€of€Justice€declining€to€grant€a€residence€permit€to€the€author.Ð H˜ ÐÌ2.€By€Its€decision€of€1€July€1986,€the€Working€Group€of€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ  d Ðtransmitted€the€communication€to€the€State€party€concerned€under€rule€91€of€the€Committee'sÐ ú J Ðprovisional€rules€of€procedure,€requesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€theÐ à 0 Ðquestion€of€admissibility€of€the€communication.Ð Æ   ÐÌ3.1.€In€its€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€29€September€1986,€the€State€party€describes€theÐ ’â  Ðfactual€situation€in€detail€and€argues€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€because€of€non„Ð xÈ  Ðexhaustion€of€domestic€remedies€and€also€on€the€ground€of€incompatibility€with€theÐ ^®  ÐCovenant.Ð D”  ÐÌ3.2.€With€regard€to€the€author's€claim€about€his€dismissal,€the€State€party€states€that€F.€G.€G.Ð ` Ð"was€employed€as€a€seaman€by€Ô_ÔNedLloydÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔRederijdienstenÔ_Ô€BV,€Rotterdam".€The€continuingÐ öF Ðrecession€and€the€considerable€Overcapacity€of€the€world€fleet,€together€with€sizeableÐ Ü, Ðoperating€losses€by€the€company,€necessitated€a€radical€reorganization€within€Ô_ÔNedLloydÔ_Ô,Ð Â Ðentailing€a'€reduction€in€the€number€of€employees.€It€was€decided€by€Ô_ÔNedLloydÔ_Ô€that€209Ð ¨ø Ðshore„based€staff€and€222€crew€members€would€have€to€be€dismissed.€In€1983€Ô_ÔNedLloydÔ_ÔÐ ŽÞ Ðapplied€to€the€director€of€the€Local€Employment€Office€in€Rotterdam€(the€competentÐ tÄ Ðgovernment€body)€for€dismissal€permits€as€it€was€obliged€to€do€under€article€6€of€the€Ô_ÔLabourÔ_ÔÐ Zª ÐRelations€(Special€Powers)€Decree€promulgated€by€the€Netherlands€Government€in€1945.Ð @ ÐIn€the€absence€of€a€mutual€agreement€between€the€employer€and€the€employee,€employmentÐ &v Ðmay€not€be€terminated,€under€the€said€article,€without€a€permit€from€the€director€of€the€LocalÐ  \ ÐEmployment€Office.€With€a€few€exceptions,€the€permits€applied€for€were€granted€by€theÐ òB Ðdirector€on€28€September€1983.€Ô_ÔNedLloydÔ_Ô€I€then€proceeded€to€dismiss€those€concerned,Ð Ø( Ðincluding€F.€G.€G.€One€hundred€and€twenty€of€the€dismissed,€seamen,€including€F.€G.€G.,Ð ¾ Ðsubsequently€issued€a€writ€of€summons,€dated€13€February€1984,€asking€the€RotterdamÐ ¤ô ÐCantonal€Court€to€declare€their€dismissal€null€and€void€and€to€order€that€they€be€reinstatedÐ Š Ú Ðin€their€jobs€because€their€dismissal€had€been€manifestly€unreasonable.€Netherlands€courtsÐ p!À  Ðare€competent€to€make€such€an€order€under€articles€Ô_Ô1639sÔ_Ô€and€Ô_Ô1639tÔ_Ô€of€the€Civil€Code.€TheÐ V"¦! Ðdismissed€seamen€claimed€in€this€action€that€the€criteria€used€in€selecting€those€who€wereÐ <#Œ" Ðto€lie€dismissed€were€discriminatory.€The€Cantonal€Court€reached€a€provisional€decision€inÐ "$r# Ðrespect€of€this€case€on€13€June€1984,€against€which€the€dismissed€seamen,€including€F.€G.Ð %X $ ÐG.,€and€Ô_ÔNedLloydÔ_Ô€lodged€an€appeal.€The€judicial€proceedings€are€still€in€progress.€In€relationÐ î%>!% Ðto€the€proceedings€concerning€his€dismissal€by€Ô_ÔNedLloydÔ_Ô,€F.€G.€G.€invokes€"the€right€to€beÐ Ô&$"& Ðfairly€and€equally€treated€before€the€law",€while€in€relation€to€the€proceedings€concerningÐ º' #' Ðthe€granting€of€the€dismissal€permit€by€the€director€of€the€Local€Employment€Office,€heÐ  (ð#( Ðinvokes€"the€right€to€have€full€information€and€the€opportunity€to€defend€himself".Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ3.3.€With€regard€to€the€admissibility€of€F.€G.€G.'s€communication,€the€State€party€addressesÐ R+¢&+ Ðtwo€questions:Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð(a)€Does€the€application€relate€to€violation€by€the€Kingdom€of€the€Netherlands€of€rights€andÐ ° Ðfreedoms€embodied€in€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€and€is€theÐ –æ Ðapplication€compatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant?Ð |Ì ÐÌ(b)€Have€all€domestic€remedies€been€exhausted?Ð H˜ ÐÌ3.4.€The€State€party€submits€that€it€is€not€clear€which€of€the€rights€and€freedoms€embodiedÐ  d Ðin€the€Covenant€F.€G.€G.€deems€to€have€been€violated.€If€F.€G.€G.'s€invocation€of€"the€rightÐ ú J Ðto€have€full€information€and€the€opportunity€to€defend€himself"€is€intended€o€refer€to€articleÐ à 0 Ð14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€argues€that€it€is€not€well„founded,€since€lieÐ Æ   Ðinvokes€this€right€in€respect€of€the€procedure€whereby€the€dismissal€permit€was€granted€byÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€director€of€:he€Local€Employment€Office.€This€procedure€does€not,€however,€constituteÐ ’â  Ð'the€determination€of€any€criminal€charge'€or€of€'rights€and€obligations€in€a€suit€at€law'€toÐ xÈ  Ðwhich€article€14,€paragraph€1,€refers.€The€application€cannot€therefore€be€said€to€relate€toÐ ^®  Ðviolation€of€this€paragraph€of€the€Covenant."Ð D”  ÐÌ3.5.€In€respect€of€F.€G.€G.'s€invocation€of€"the€right€to€be€fairly€and€equally€treated€beforeÐ ` Ðthe€law",€the€State€party€observes€thatÐ öF ÐÌIf€this€is€intended€as€an€invocation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant,€then€in€so€far€as€this€articleÐ Â Ðis€invoked€in€respect€of€F.€G.€G.'s€dismissal€by€Ô_ÔNedLloydÔ_Ô€the€Netherlands€Government€.€.Ð ¨ø Ð.€takes€the€view€that€article€26€of€the€Covenant€does€entail€an€obligation€to€avoidÐ ŽÞ Ðdiscrimination,€but€that€this€article€can€only€be€invoked€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€theÐ tÄ ÐCovenant€in€the€sphere€of€civil€and€political€rights.€The€scope€of€article€26€of€the€CovenantÐ Zª Ðis€not€necessarily€li€it€to€those€civil€and€political€rights€that€are€embodied€in€the€Covenant.Ð @ Ð(The€Netherlands€Government€could,€for€instance,€envisage€the€admissibility€under€theÐ &v ÐOptional€Protocol€of€a€complaint€concerning€discrimination€in€the€field€of€taxation.)€But€theÐ  \ ÐGovernment€cannot€accept€the€admissibility€of€a€complaint€concerning€rights€which€are€notÐ òB Ðin€themselves€civil€and€political€rights,€such€as€economic,€social€and€cultural€rights.€TheÐ Ø( Ðlatter€category€of€rights€is€governed€by€a€separate€international€covenant.€F.€G.€G.'sÐ ¾ Ðcomplaint€relates€to€rights€in€the€economic€and€social€sphere,€which€fall€under€theÐ ¤ô ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Economic,€Social€and€Cultural€Rights.€Articles€2,€6€and€7€of€thatÐ Š Ú ÐCovenant€are€of€particular€relevance€here.€That€Covenant€has€its€own€specific€system€andÐ p!À  Ðits€own€specific€organ€for€international€monitoring€„of€how€States€parties€meet€theirÐ V"¦! Ðobligations.€It€deliberately€does€not€provide€for€an€individual€complaints€procedure.€TheÐ <#Œ" ÐGovernment€considers€it€incompatible€with€the€aims€of€both€the€Covenants€and„the€OptionalÐ "$r# ÐProtocol€that€an€individual€complaint€with€respect€to€the€right€to€equal€treatment€as€referredÐ %X $ Ðto€in€article€2€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Economic,€Social€and€Cultural€Rights€shouldÐ î%>!% Ðbe€dealt€with€by€the€Human€Rights€Committee€by€way€of€an€individual€complaint€under€theÐ Ô&$"& ÐOptional€Protocol€based€on€article€26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€PoliticalÐ º' #' ÐÔ_ÔRiFhtsÔ_Ô.€The€Government€therefore€takes€the€view€that€the€application€submitted€by€F.€G.€G.Ð  (ð#( Ðdoes€not€relate€to€any€violation€by€the€Kingdom€of€the€Netherlands€of€rights€and€freedomsÐ †)Ö$) Ðembodied€in€that€Covenant€and€that€it€is€not€compatible€with€the€provisions€thereof.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ3.6.€With€regard€to€the€question,€whether€domestic€remedies€have€been€exhausted,€the€StateÐ 8,ˆ', Ðparty€observes:Ð -n(- ЇThe€civil€proceedings€brought€by€the€seamen€in€connection€with€the€dismissal€by€Ô_ÔNedLloydÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðof€F.€G.€G.€and€his€fellow€employees€.€.€.€are€still€sub€judice.€The€[Rotterdam]€CantonalÐ –æ ÐCourt€has€not€yet€made€a€Definitive€decision€with€regard€to€the€seamen's€claim.€Among€theÐ |Ì ÐIssues€raised€in€these€proceedings€is€the€lawfulness€of€the€granting€of€the€dismissal€permit.Ð b² ÐArticle€26€of€the€Covenant€is€one€of€the€provisions€invoked€by€the€seamen.€The€definitiveÐ H˜ Ðdecision€of€the€Cantonal€Court€will€be€open€to€appeal€before€the€District€Court€whoseÐ . ~ Ðdecision€is€open€to€appeal€in€cessation€before€the€Supreme€Court.€The€Government€thereforeÐ  d Ðtakes€the€view€that€with€regard€to€F.€G.€G.'s€application€domestic€remedies€have€not€yet€beenÐ ú J Ðexhausted.Ð à 0 ÐÌ4.1.€In€his€comments€of€28€October€1986,€the€author€contends€that€the€State€party'sÐ ¬ ü  Ðsubmission€is€incomplete.€He€adds€the€following€facts:Ð ’â  ÐÌà0 4 à1.€From€24€October€1963€to€8.€September€1971€1€worked€on€Netherlands€basedÐ ^®  Ðships.ÐD” 4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à2.€From€9€September€1971€to€7€August€1976€I€worked€on€Netherlands€based€shipsÐ ` Ðfor€transport€on€inland€water€(Rhine).ÐöF4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à3.€From€7€August€1976€to€22€September€1983€1€worked€on€3€Netherlands€basedÐ Â Ðships€(NedLloyd€Company).Шø4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à4.€I€was€registered€at€the€Rotterdam€Municipality€from€24€April€1972€until€4€AugustÐ tÄ Ð1978€when,€without€my€knowledge,€I€was€erased€from€the€register€of€municipalÐ Zª Ðinhabitants.Ð@4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à5.€On€three€different€occasions€until€1983,€I€requested€official€permission€to€establishÐ  \ Ðmyself€in€the€Netherlands,€which€was€not€granted,€although€I€fulfilled€all€theÐ òB Ðrequirements€imposed€under€the€Netherlands€law€for€foreign€seamen€(noÐ Ø( Ðcriminal/political€record€either€in€Spain€or€in€the€Netherlands;€more€than€seven€yearsÐ ¾ Ðof€employment€on€Netherlands€based€ships€...€;€employed€and€registered€in€a€givenÐ ¤ô ÐNetherlands€municipality).Њ Ú4ü!4ü! ÐÌ4.2.€With€regard€to€his€claim€to€be€a€victim€of€discrimination,€he€stresses€thatÐ V"¦! ÐÌThe€people€fired€were€all€foreign€workers€.€.€.€According€to€the€Netherlands€LabourÐ "$r# ÐRelations€Act,€when€dismissals€may€take€place,€the€Labour€Employment€Office€must€takeÐ %X $ Ðinto€account€the€following€elements:Ð î%>!% ÐÌ(a)€Seniority€(first€in,€last€out);Ð º' #' ÐÌ(b)€Representation€(persons€to€be€fired€must€be€proportionally€represented€among€differentÐ †)Ö$) Ð"workers€stratas€at€the€company€branch").€That€means€candidates€to€be€dismissed€must€beÐ l*¼%* Ðselected€among€persons€of€different€age,€mastership,€experience,€education,€etc;Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ(c)€Workers€to€be€fired€have€the€right€to€ask€for€an€alternative€job€at€the€sameÐ -n(- Ðcompany/subsidiaries,€if€there€are€vacancies.Ð ° ÐÌAll€of€these€elements€are€stated€at€the€Collective€Ô_ÔLabourÔ_Ô€Agreement€(Ô_ÔCAOÔ_Ô)€signed€by€theÐ |Ì ÐNetherlands€Ô_ÔLabourÔ_Ô€Unions€and€the€Companies.€The€Ô_ÔCAOÔ_Ô€was€agreed€five€years€before€weÐ b² Ðwere€fired€and€any€foreign€seaman€with€more€than€three€years€of€service€was€automaticallyÐ H˜ Ðin€included€in€it,€independently€of€whether€the€seaman€was€a€member€of€a€given€union€orÐ . ~ Ðnot.Ð  d ÐÌ4.3.€The€author€argues€that€none€of€the€above€mentioned€criteria€was€taken€into€account€byÐ à 0 Ðthe€Ô_ÔLabourÔ_Ô€Employment€Office€at€Rotterdam.€He€further€states:Ð Æ   ÐÌThe€Minister€of€Ô_ÔLabourÔ_Ô€produced€a€letter€(dated€23€September€1983)€to€the€Director€of€theÐ ’â  ÐÔ_ÔLabourÔ_Ô€Employment€Office,€stating€that€in€the€specific€situation€of€the€foreign€seamenÐ xÈ  Ð("Ô_ÔNedLloydÔ_Ô€Case")€the€principles€of€seniority,€and€representation€must€not€be€applied.€A€newÐ ^®  Ðcriteria,€completely€unknown€to€us€and€which€was€not€present€in€the€Ô_ÔCAOÔ_Ô€was€implemented:Ð D”  Ðthe€criteria€of€the€place€of€residence€for€foreign€seamen.€That€means,€seamen€could€be€firedÐ *z  Ðif€they€could€not€Drove€that€they€had€a€residence€on€Netherlands€soil.€Never€before€was€theÐ ` Ðplace€of€residence€an€element€to€determine€whether€workers€could€be€fired.Ð öF ÐÌ5.1.€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ Â ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ ¨ø Ðwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ5.2.€With€regard€to€article€5,€paragraph€2€òò(b),€óóof€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€hasÐ Zª Ðargued€that€the€civil€proceedings€concerning€the€author€and€the€other€seamen€are€still€òòsubÐ @ Ðjudice€óóbefore€the€Rotterdam€Cantonal€Court.€An€adverse€decision€by€that€court€would€beÐ &v Ðappealable€to€the€District€Court,€whose€decision€in€turn€could.€be€tested€in€cessation€beforeÐ  \ Ðthe€Supreme€Court.€Accordingly,€the€Committee€finds€that€domestic€remedies€have€not€beenÐ òB Ðexhausted.Ð Ø( ÐÌ6.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:Ð ¤ô ÐÌ(1)€The€communication€is€inadmissible;Ð p!À  ÐÌ(2)€This€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€author€and€to€the€State€party.